« War is, like, so totally gross: part 3 | Main | Your Other War »
but where were all your shoulders when we cried
by mg at 09:49 AM on March 27, 2003
Yes, I promised I wouldn’t talk about the war. But that doesn’t stop me from thinking about it. And, this isn’t a rant, so please feel safe reading on; you aren’t likely to get (very) mad at anything I have to say.
I’ve listened to everything everyone has had to say about action in Iraq, from Bush to Nader, from the Young Americans for Freedom to ANSWER, from Rush Limbaugh to Michael Moore, and I came to a conclusion that this war is a just and legal one.
The real turning point for me was Colin Powell’s utterly convincing presentation before the United Nations. Yet, somehow Powell wasn’t able to convince enough nations to support a final resolution against Iraq. I was shocked. Were these people listening to the same speech I was?
And then I realized, they weren’t.
If you take a look at our biggest allies in the coalition, you’ll find England, Australia, and Spain. What do two of these countries share with the United States? A common language. The third, Spain, speaks Spanish, a language George Bush speaks fluently (probably more so than English). The reason they were convinced is because they could understand what we were saying. “But,” I thought, “surely the United Nations must employ the best translators in the world!”
So, I decided to do a little digging. After countless hours of research in libraries across the city, I decided to just check their website, and it was then that I hit the jackpot. The United Nations uses Babelfish translation services, and if you’ve ever used Babelfish, now it is perfectly clear to see why communication broke down. Bush can speak to Blair, Howard, and Aznar in their native languages, but the rest of the world is getting these dubious Babelfish translations.
Considering my awesome lingual powers, I took Colin Powell’s February 6th presentation before the United Nations, translated it using Babelfish, and then translated it back into English myself, all in with the intent to figure out exactly what the foreign delegates were hearing. Here are a few examples:
What Powell really said:
What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior. The facts on Iraq's behavior demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort -- no effort -- to disarm as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq's behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.
What the French heard:
"I offend people. I ask this lady a lewd question because I'm in a lot of pain. I have some pain I'm gonna have for the rest of my life. So every now and then, I kick your fucking ass and stomp on you and put some kind of pain and inflict some of the pain on you because you deserve to feel the pain that I feel. I wish that you guys had children so I could kick them in the fucking head or stomp on their testicles so you could feel my pain because that's the pain I have waking up every day."
What Powell really said:
Nothing points more clearly to Saddam Hussein's dangerous intentions and the threat he poses to all of us than his calculated cruelty to his own citizens and to his neighbors. Clearly, Saddam Hussein and his regime will stop at nothing until something stops him.
What the Syrians heard:
”Through the Dark of Future's Past, magicians long to see. One chance out between two worlds; ‘Fire Walk With Me.’ Head's up, tails up, run your scallwags. Night falls, morning calls, I'll catch you with my death bag. You may think I've gone insane, but I promise, I will kill again!”
What Powell really said:
Resolution 1441 was not dealing with an innocent party, but a regime this council has repeatedly convicted over the years. Resolution 1441 gave Iraq one last chance, one last chance to come into compliance or to face serious consequences. No council member present in voting on that day had any illusions about the nature and intent of the resolution or what serious consequences meant if Iraq did not comply.
What the Russians heard:
“Well, to clarify, I meant INTERSPECIES SEX, but STRAIGHT INTERSPECIES SEX... I mean, I don't jerk off dogs, or let a male dog suck my dick, but FELINE FEMALE CATS... um... you just lured me into an ugly trap... Okay, it's just that my ultimate fantasy would be fucking a big cat, like a leopard or tiger (doggy style) and then bite her ear upon ejaculation. I dunno, and then the issue of INTERSPECIES/INTERRACIAL SEX comes about. IF I fucked a panther, would that be the aforementioned?”
What Powell really said:
Iraq has now placed itself in danger of the serious consequences called for in U.N. Resolution 1441. And this body places itself in danger of irrelevance if it allows Iraq to continue to defy its will without responding effectively and immediately. The issue before us is not how much time we are willing to give the inspectors to be frustrated by Iraqi obstruction, but how much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq's noncompliance before we, as a council, we, as the United Nations, say: “Enough. Enough.”'
What the Cameroonians heard:
”See this? This is my boom stick! The 12-gauge double-barreled Remington. S-Mart's top of the line. You can find this in the sporting goods department. That's right, this sweet baby was made in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Retails for about $109.95. It's got a walnut stock, cobalt blue steel, and a hair trigger. That's right. Shop smart. Shop S-Mart. You got that?”
And, I didn’t even know that Babelfish had this capability, but they have an English to Liberalese translation function.
So, when Powell said:
We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program. On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons.
This is what the liberals heard:
“I can't dislike you, but I will say this to you: you haven't got long before you are all going to kill yourselves, because you are all crazy. And you can project it back at me, but I am only what lives inside each and every one of you.”
There you have it. Definitive proof that if the United Nations weren’t shaving a few bucks off their operational expenses and using a free online translation service, none of these diplomatic problems would ever have happened.
comments (24)
Babelfish is a blast. I like translating text from english to spanish to german to french to chineese and then to english again to see what kind of new meaning I get from it. I wonder if the Bible was translated in a similar way?
by MrBlank at March 27, 2003 12:29 PM
Okay, if people don't start commenting on this post, where I was trying to lighten the mood, but still remain topical, I'm going to have to revert to talking about the war seriously again.
by mg at March 27, 2003 2:33 PM
Talk seriously about war? I thought your post was very serious. In fact, it's the most logical argument I've ever heard yet about the 'skirmish'. And I love the liberalise(linz-anese) and russian hotkey babelfish translations. I'm honest when I say that this POST was dead serious. And right on. More right on than Hawkman being Italy incarnate. Think about it, of all the posts on this current war, this one really says it all.
by LOCKHEED at March 27, 2003 4:23 PM
Oops, I think I ruined it. Anyway, are you going to reveal to us what all of the Babelfish replies referred to? I know all but the first and last.
Oh, man. That pussy love translation about killed me!
by MrBlank at March 27, 2003 4:29 PM
I liked the Super-Friends/Super-Nations and the kitty post as much as I like this one. Other than that I have nothing witty to say.
by Lucy at March 27, 2003 5:25 PM
I dont think the UN uses Babelfish...
by Eviltom at March 27, 2003 6:25 PM
Babelfish or no, I think if you implanted the UN debating society's brains with precise translations of anything it would still fall on deaf ears. But what really kills me (as one who opposed the war in the 1st place) is what these "peace" protesters staging "die-ins" worldwide would have us do now. Lay down our arms and go home w/ our tail between our legs like in 'Nam? Surely that wouldn't embolden Al Quada, now would it? Why don't media interviewing these people ask that pointed question and insist on a cogent answer? It's not as though any exists. You in fo' a penny you in fo' a pound.
by Anna at March 27, 2003 8:23 PM
Well, the problem with the peace protestors is that they don't really understand. Their parents protested Viet Nam, and now they think they should be doing something too. Forget the fact that even the people who've felt so strongly against the war that they went to Iraq as human shields are now coming out solidly in favor of war after seeing exactly what's been going on over there for the last 20 years These spoiled white college kids planning "die-ins" in their dorm rooms start bitching after getting hauled into jail overnight. They point to pictures of dead soldiers and civilians as a reason this war was wrong. Someone should show them what it looks like for a three-year old to starve to death because her government was too stubborn to pump oil without getting to use the profits on more Scud missilies and Russian anti-tank rockets they aren't supposed to have in the first place. Maybe then they'll get it through their thick skulls that what's going on now is awful, but really is the only option.
by mg at March 27, 2003 8:54 PM
See what you've made me do? I just wanted to make a stupid little Babelish joke, and now I'm all worked up and upset again. I'm going away now.
by mg at March 27, 2003 8:57 PM
MG, you should just go read my journal and offer your sage advice in my guestbook. There is no talk about war in my journal, and you can make all the "bableish" jokes you want. Yeah.
by Lucy at March 27, 2003 9:38 PM
MG ROCKS!!!
by LOCKHEED at March 27, 2003 9:48 PM
Your comment on the PEACE PROTESTERS, both ANNA and MG is very LOCKHEED-Friendly. I must say, I like how you both step up to the plate.
by lockheed at March 27, 2003 9:54 PM
You knew I'd do this, so here you go:
Powells presentation appeared (to me at least) like a high school presentation. Hypersimplified and full of "he started first, mommy" and "look how bad he is" arguments.
No wonder many were not convinced.
Plus, the truth is getting more and more obvious.
What about the fact so many people in the US government participate in the companies tha will re-build iraq? (i.e. they'll get the moneyyyy)
Oh, and Powell said "there's no UN for us anymore". Reminds me of Hitler.
+no arguments STILL about not letting UN solve the matter peacefully now that Saddam had just started to cooperate (Under the pressure of war)
+see what's done now? Innocents die. gimme a VALID argument for that. (no I won't take the "it's better than dying from hunger" argument. I mean lifting the sanctions after UN finished its inspections would do that. Killing someone so he won't starve is NOT an argument)
by necropethamenos at March 28, 2003 3:46 AM
And this I read today, it goes to support the "high school" part of my comment:
"And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad." "
Found it in CNN.com
by necropethamenos at March 28, 2003 4:32 AM
Have you ever seen a U.N. presentation before Powell's? Me neither. Maybe they are all like this? I know Hans Blix' presentation was hardly rocket science. Maybe the presentations are so simple because they are done in conjunction with a several hundred page supporting document?
The United States accounts for nearly 50% of the worlds GDP. It is conceivable that any rebuilding, any where in the world, at any time, will go to an American company. Even if it went to a company based outside the U.S., an American company would still profit somewhere along the line. Trying to do business anywhere in the world without the U.S. would be like making a decision to breathe only the nitrogen in air.
When did Powell say "there's no UN for us anymore"? I was searching for that as a quote and couldn't find it anywhere. If there is no U.N. for us, why are U.S. delegates still participating in the U.N. today?
And, as for Hitler, can we not bring up Hitler? Any time someone brings up Germany or Hitler it is a sign that all other rational conversation has ended. The only Hitler is Hitler. There was no U.N. during Hitler's life. There was the Leauge of Nations, which, as a result of WWII was disbanded, because it proved to be innefectual in dealing with world problems. Just because there is a U.N., doesn't mean it is an effective or neccessary body.
Did you know that in the past week, the U.S. introduced a resolution into the U.N. to turn over control of the oil fields to the U.N. until an Iraqi government is created? This resolution was rejected. If we wanted their oil, why would we give it up as soon as we could? Why would the U.N. choose not to take control of the oil for aid program? Also, did you know a resolution was introduced in the U.N. to increase humanitarian aid to Iraq? It was rejected. By the French.
And what do you mean Iraq was cooperating? Just over the course of the past week, Iraq has fired Scud missiles it wasn't supposed to have. Has used rader jamming technology it wasn't supposed to have (supplied by the Russians). Has used anti-tank rockets it wasn't supposed to have (supplied by the French). How was this cooperating with disarmament? There has also been evidence of chemical weapons, found, though nothing conclusive yet.
I've read stories about several nations uninvolved with the coalition speaking with Saddam's governement re: ending the war through the U.N. He has so far not accepted any of these efforts to resolve things peacefully.
How long would the inspections have lasted? Another decade? Even another month? The only reasons sanctions would have been lifted is if it was found that Iraq had been cooperating. Which hardly seems likely to have happened. What would have changed in a month to make him cooperate when he hadn't for a decade previous? You know how many people would have starved in that extra month of inspections? More than 8000.
As for the Bush quote. It's more than a year old. It was in response to reporter's questions about whether he had a personal grudge against Saddam, not to why the government was interested in Iraq. If you really believe this is about this kind of revenge, then we might as well stop talking right now because you are completly irrational. What no one ever mentions when they use that quote is that George H. Bush was president at the time. Saddam Hussein tried to have the president of the U.S. assasinated during a time of peace. Not only should George W. Bush be upset by that, but the whole of the United States should.
by mg at March 28, 2003 7:19 AM
"We didn't take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future" is what he actually said. I translated it to "there's no UN for us anymore" because of its meaning and I didnt mean it as a REAL quote.
"Also, did you know a resolution was introduced in the U.N. to increase humanitarian aid to Iraq? It was rejected. By the French" This is a bit like saying "I kick his ass. You told me not to. I do. So now, please, help pay the ass-doctor."
"Have you ever seen a U.N. presentation before Powell's? Me neither." The fact remains, it failed to convince me, and I'm a simple citizen not a politician or diplomat who, I guess, require something more than I do to be convinced. Maybe ALL UN presentations are like that. What does that change? An unconvincig presentation still is not enough to start a war.
"they are done in conjunction with a several hundred page supporting document" In that case neither me or you can bring this presentation as an argument cause we don't know what was in these pages. Could be the absolute proof, could be a big shopping list.
"The United States accounts for nearly 50% of the worlds GDP. It is conceivable that any rebuilding, any where in the world, at any time, will go to an American company." You missed the point, I think. a) That 50% does not mean an american company should get a job in asia. It CERTAINLY does not mean that ONLY american companies should do the job. b) even if it meant that, the problem is that the US government has already planned (NOT secretly or whatever) that 1. we bomb the place 2. we give the job to our companies - cause we've bombed the place. If you don't see something wrong with that, well, what can I say? c) the fact that people in the US government (as reported in the press worldwide) are part of these companies simply means they get the money. Quite clearly : they make the war, they rebuild, they get the money. War = Money.
"There was no U.N. during Hitler's life. There was the Leauge of Nations, which, as a result of WWII was disbanded, because it proved to be innefectual in dealing with world problems. " Actually, Hitler chose to ignore the League of Nations and go on with WWII. Reminds you of someone?
"Just because there is a U.N., doesn't mean it is an effective or neccessary body." Hitler's thoughts exactly! Oh, and that's what international treaties are for. So that noone can say "UN is not necessary" etc. It IS necessary as long as your country has accepted UNs terms.
"How was this cooperating with disarmament? There has also been evidence of chemical weapons, found, though nothing conclusive yet." I simply meant if the inspections had continued, these missiles and everything else WOULD have been found. Letting inspectors on their ground was a BIG step for such an authoritarian and extreme government. It would lead to disarmament after some months. Without war. At least, it was worth a try.
"How long would the inspections have lasted? Another decade? Even another month? " According to the inspectors, months. Why US wouldnt wait months after they've waited a decade is another proof of their true intentions.
"The only reasons sanctions would have been lifted is if it was found that Iraq had been cooperating. " a) Do I need to remind you who pressed the UN into imposing the sanctions? b) Inspectors said iraq seemed to cooperate. So it might not have taken long for the sanctions to be removed.
"You know how many people would have starved in that extra month of inspections? More than 8000" Right. So now many have already died (counting civilians+soldiers) and cities like Vasora (4.000.000 ppl city) have been led to immediate starvation, no water, no electricity, no hospitals. You think this is better? Apart from that, as I said earlier, sanctions might have been lifted earlier due to (partial, I admit) cooperation.
"As for the Bush quote. It's more than a year old." So? "Saddam Hussein tried to have the president of the U.S. assasinated during a time of peace. " Right. A time of peace after US made a war against Iraq? Man this is some way of thinking! "I kick your ass, then I stop, and when you try to kick mine I'm all whiney about it!" And, no, it's not revenge. It's just a phrase unbelievably childish for a politician. And that means a lot for me about a man who chooses to begin a war!
And a completey personal thingy here: For too many years I was mad about UN and EU being cooperative to anything US pushed forward. Gulf War,Bosnia, Afghanistan. So for the FIRST time I feel good about governments having a different opinion and showing it. This means I realize UN has been co-responsible for the sanctions etc. I just think that now steps have been made to overcome this madness I had to witness for sooo long, and this war destroys all rational efforts.
by necropethamenos at March 28, 2003 8:43 AM
America is going to war for money??!! WTF? How much money will this war cost the US? I have a guess. A WHOLE LOT MORE than what US companies will gain rebuilding. If anything this war will cause the US to lose money.
Maybe other countries haven't even offered to help rebuild. If everyone else is so against the war so why would they want help with it?
Bush the similar to Hitler? Anyone who believes that has some major screws loose. The UN has tried to get Saddam to cooperate and he wouldn't, and since we are speculating on what might have happened if there was no war, I'd say he'd never ever cooperate. Bush knows Saddam has the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the intent to sell them. This isn’t about conquest. It’s about self-defense. If anything, Saddam is the one like Hitler.
I think people tend to forget about Sept. 11. That was done with airplanes and jet fuel. Just imagine what a nuclear bomb could do. There are no 'do overs' with that. The threat to the US is real and since the UN can't protect us, we have to do it ourselves before something happens. War sucks but it's better than waiting around for the bomb to drop.
by MrBlank at March 28, 2003 12:13 PM
I obviously "have some screws loose" but I won't shut up :)
"how much money will this war cost the US?"
Well I don't know, for Gulf War 1, though, US paid 7 Billions (NOTHING in comparison with what the companies will earn now), Kuwait and Saudi Arabia OVER 15 BILLIONS and the rest was paid by Coalition members! So, let me have my doubts about the "sacrificial" character of US moves. Yup, it'll cost them NOTHING compared to what they get. It's a safe investment.
"Maybe other countries haven't even offered to help rebuild. If everyone else is so against the war so why would they want help with it? "
The problem is US made war with Iraq IN ORDER to make money. THAT'S the annoying and guilty part. Who else is gonna make money out of America's war makes little difference. In fact I don't know if finally someone else will, the whole point is MAKING WAR TO MAKE MONEY IS NOT REALLY MORAL OR CIVILIZED, IS IT?
"Bush the similar to Hitler? Anyone who believes that has some major screws loose."
Come on, it's like I already answered that in my previews comment. Answer with an argument, please. Oh and saddam WOULD be Hitler too if he had the power. The whole point is UN FINALLY seemed to move towards a peaceful solution. Why wouldn't US wait? Think!
"Bush knows Saddam has the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction and the intent to sell them"
Right. Who sold weapons of mass destruction to Saddam in the first place? Maybe US? Plus, it's like you never read what I wrote: UN seemed to finally find a peaceful way to do what US does by war.
"I think people tend to forget about Sept. 11. That was done with airplanes and jet fuel"
Exactly! And not by Iraq or Afghanistan as countries!! With this war US gains nothing other than creating more terrorists willing to sacrifice themselves +planes, cars, whatever and lots of fuel just to kill some of americans (and perhaps europeans too). WHAT safety?
Finally, you ever thought about making war on suspicions? It's the same as holding suspects in camps and granting them no human rights. What next? Will I be imprisoned someday for writing these lines?
by necropethamenos at March 28, 2003 1:31 PM
This is a totally contentious arguement. The people who paid for the Gulf War did so WILLINGLY. How is the fact that Kuwait paid twice as much as the US prove anything? Especially considering it was Kuwait that was being defended. To expect the United States to pay more of the costs would be like not paying any taxes and still expecting to have the police rush to your house if someone breaks in in the middle of the night. The fact is, the United States provided 500,000 soldiers to defend Kuwait, why should they be the ones to have paid for it?
Secondly, this war is not about money. President Bush already asked for $70 billion, just for the first MONTH of fighting. That is more than the entire Gulf War cost. That is TWO YEARS worth of oil production in Iraq, even if EVERY penny of the gross went to the U.S., and over a decade if we're talking every pennt of net profits. If America just wanted oil, why would they hand the fields over the UN today? If the US just wanted contracts to rebuild, why would they spend more in one month of war than Iraq could hope to repay anytime in the near future. If you are calling these people greedy capitalists, this is easily the most illogical move any one has ever made from a business standpoint.
Whats more, no one else is going to be paying us back this time. Even after the Gulf War, the US had to beg other countries to pay us what they'd pledged to an effort they'd all stood up for so noblely at the time. And I guarantee you that unless the U.N. decide soon to be involved in the rebuilding in Iraq, American and British companies WILL be the ones getting the majority of the contracts. So far, France has rejected any offers to help build or feed Iraq. Why? It is pretty shameful to not offer your help to someone who needs it just to spite the US.
by mg at March 28, 2003 1:59 PM
"Well, the problem with the peace protestors is that they don't really understand. Their parents protested Viet Nam, and now they think they should be doing something too..."
"Maybe then they'll get it through their thick skulls that what's going on now is awful, but really is the only option."
mg, do you really think that you understand and have unbiased knowledge of the full scope of things and all peace protestors are just a bunch of blindly antiwar lemmings with no logical arguments? There are geniuses on both sides. There is hypocrisy on both sides. There are liars on both sides. There are good hearts on both sides. And there is ignorance on both sides. My side might get the drugged out suburban hippiecrites, but come on, your side gets most of the inbred back woods contingent.
I respect your stance. Do you respect mine?
by at March 28, 2003 2:16 PM
Oops, that was me above.
by Linz at March 28, 2003 2:19 PM
I respect you. But more and more I don't respect the anti-war movement. What all arguements seems to boil down to now is idealism vs. realism, emotion vs fact. Neither side can ever win in that kind of arguement. I know that now, and should really just not get into another conversation about this war ever again. But, here goes. The problem is that we live in the real world, not the ideal world. It'd be wonderful if everyone could get along in peace, and no one ever did anything against the rules. But the hard, incontrovertible truth is that we live in a world where awful things happen every second, of every day. A lot of those awful things happen in Iraq, and if left to their own devices, the people who do those awful things in Iraq could (and do) cause awful things to be done around the world. The U.N. fucked up at the end of the Gulf War by now removing Saddam from power. The U.N. has continued to fuck up every day since by allowing Saddam to starve his nation to death and ignore rules set in place to protect. What Saddam has done, and continues to do to his people are facts. War is awful, and war causes death. But there is no arguement that anyone will ever make to me that will convince me that protecting the lives of a few soldiers and civilians today, is worth sentencing millions more to death over another decade. And I just can't comprehend why anyone could think otherwise.
by mg at March 28, 2003 4:03 PM
"The problem is that we live in the real world, not the ideal world."
Your notion of a happily-ever-after resulting from this war is just as idealistic as my notion that this war wasn't necessary. Your notion of the leaders of this country being altruistic are as naive as my notion that negotiating could have prevented this.
"...protecting the lives of a few soldiers and civilians today, is worth sentencing millions more to death over another decade."
Who is saying that? I'm certainly not. It's not (a) war or (b) everyone in Iraq dies. What about (c) try harder to find a peaceful solution?
Crap. Now I'm in this again. It's been an awake day vs. an asleep day, punctuated by an emotional lunch with another bleeding heart.
by Linz at March 28, 2003 4:38 PM
Proctologists should call themselves "ass-doctors." A visit to them would be so much less intimidating that way. As for the UN, I predict it goes the way of said League of Nations, and the sooner the better. Talk about a bunch of gasbags! I opposed the war before it started, but after watching the UN for hours on end, I just wanted the battle to start in hopes of shutting them up. And for the record, I opposed it solely because Iraq or anyplace else is just a distraction from humanity exacting its deserved blood vengeance against all past/present Muslim terrorists. That's all that will ever matter. I haven't forgotten, Mr. Blank.
by Anna at March 28, 2003 6:58 PM